Senate Appears To Have Votes to Overturn Emergency Declaration

[toomuchtime_]

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

His objection was to re-allocation of funds that were approved by Congress.
Can’t blame him.

That's his excuse for grabbing the spotlight. In fact, no money is being reallocated. The money will come from drug interdiction money held by the Treasury and from the military construction fund.

The military construction fund isn't a slush fund that can be tapped on a presidential whim. It was funded for specific military construction projects, and can not be redirected without some military reason to do so. We are not under attack, and there is no military reason to build a wall.

------------------------- i think that we have USA Military on the Border right now Bulldog .

They are not there in a military role since the military cannot enforce civilian law.

They are there to defend the border in the event the Border Patrol fails.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

Rand Paul is an honest broker, you two partisan hack clowns are not.

Paul is ideologue who is simply irrelevant to most issues. He is irrelevant to this issue since this vote is just a meaningless gesture.

 

[80zephyr]

Once again the courts will act as nannies telling our elected officials how they are supposed to act. Half of the nation will be outraged at the verdict that should never have come about in the first place because the issue should never have come up to start with. The Congress allocates the monies. They didn't allocate money for the wall outside of what was spelled out in the CR. That is where it should stop.

That the veto isn't over-ridden 435-0 and 100-0 is a travesty. Why even have a congress if the Executive can just re-allocate funding as it see's fit?

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

the Military just being there as wusses does show that this is a Military Issue . And law or not the Military should be able to stop an invasion . Hopefully the laws will change in the future as concerns invasion over the USA Southern border BBee .

There is no invasion. This is not a military issue. The troops are being separated from their loved ones so Trump can play politics.

More Migrant Families Arrested at Border in Five Months Than Any Previous Full Year

More Migrant Families Arrested at Border in Five Months Than Any Previous Full Year

Tell me, if this isn't an invasion, wht is it?

Mark

 

[toomuchtime_]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

The Constitution says when Congress sez no, it means NO. No president has tried to do this before (well, maybe Truman during WWII, but he got stopped cold by the SC). Of course, we didn't have the national emergency legislation then, either. It might be time to reword that damned thing.

I see, so you believe the executive and legislative branches of government are no coequals?

 

[candycorn]

Once again the courts will act as nannies telling our elected officials how they are supposed to act. Half of the nation will be outraged at the verdict that should never have come about in the first place because the issue should never have come up to start with. The Congress allocates the monies. They didn't allocate money for the wall outside of what was spelled out in the CR. That is where it should stop.

That the veto isn't over-ridden 435-0 and 100-0 is a travesty. Why even have a congress if the Executive can just re-allocate funding as it see's fit?

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

They were also emergencies

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

 

[80zephyr]

Once again the courts will act as nannies telling our elected officials how they are supposed to act. Half of the nation will be outraged at the verdict that should never have come about in the first place because the issue should never have come up to start with. The Congress allocates the monies. They didn't allocate money for the wall outside of what was spelled out in the CR. That is where it should stop.

That the veto isn't over-ridden 435-0 and 100-0 is a travesty. Why even have a congress if the Executive can just re-allocate funding as it see's fit?

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

They were also emergencies

Define emergency.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.

Mark

 

[candycorn]

Once again the courts will act as nannies telling our elected officials how they are supposed to act. Half of the nation will be outraged at the verdict that should never have come about in the first place because the issue should never have come up to start with. The Congress allocates the monies. They didn't allocate money for the wall outside of what was spelled out in the CR. That is where it should stop.

That the veto isn't over-ridden 435-0 and 100-0 is a travesty. Why even have a congress if the Executive can just re-allocate funding as it see's fit?

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

They were also emergencies

Define emergency.

Mark

Something that happens that requires an immediate response.

 

[80zephyr]

Once again the courts will act as nannies telling our elected officials how they are supposed to act. Half of the nation will be outraged at the verdict that should never have come about in the first place because the issue should never have come up to start with. The Congress allocates the monies. They didn't allocate money for the wall outside of what was spelled out in the CR. That is where it should stop.

That the veto isn't over-ridden 435-0 and 100-0 is a travesty. Why even have a congress if the Executive can just re-allocate funding as it see's fit?

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

They were also emergencies

Define emergency.

Mark

Something that happens that requires an immediate response.

If I told you that more migrant families were arrested at the border in the past 5 months then in any previous full year, would you believe that to be an emergency?

Mark

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.

Mark

Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.

It'll be decided by the courts.

I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.

How will they rule? I don't know.

 

[candycorn]

Once again the courts will act as nannies telling our elected officials how they are supposed to act. Half of the nation will be outraged at the verdict that should never have come about in the first place because the issue should never have come up to start with. The Congress allocates the monies. They didn't allocate money for the wall outside of what was spelled out in the CR. That is where it should stop.

That the veto isn't over-ridden 435-0 and 100-0 is a travesty. Why even have a congress if the Executive can just re-allocate funding as it see's fit?

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

They were also emergencies

Define emergency.

Mark

Something that happens that requires an immediate response.

If I told you that more migrant families were arrested at the border in the past 5 months then in any previous full year, would you believe that to be an emergency?

Mark

No. Around the year 2000 we had over a million arrests. There was no national emergency then.

In the ensuing 18 years...

*GDP has doubled in this nation.

*The Stock Market has doubled a great many times.

*Family wealth has increased on the average which is remarkable considering that the power of labor has gone from being on life support to being legally dead

*Violent crime continues to decrease

*Standards of living continue to increase

*The drug problem has gotten worse but as we have seen with prisons, walls and guards do little to stop drugs from getting in to those places so it's foolish to think it will stop a measurable quantity from getting over a 2,000 mile barrier.

My turn: Please justify declaring a "national emergency" in 02/19? Why wasn't it a national emergency in 01/17 when the President took office?
I understand not getting funding through Congress was frustrating but Congress is not there to be a rubber stamp for the President.

Doesn't this open the door to funding any campaign promise through declaration of a National Emergency?

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

 

[80zephyr]

Congress passed the emergencies act, and it is legal for Trump to use it. Of the other 30+ emergencies by past presidents, I'll bet money wasn't considered. ONLY with Trump is it a problem.

Mark

They were also emergencies

Define emergency.

Mark

Something that happens that requires an immediate response.

If I told you that more migrant families were arrested at the border in the past 5 months then in any previous full year, would you believe that to be an emergency?

Mark

No. Around the year 2000 we had over a million arrests. There was no national emergency then.

In the ensuing 18 years...

*GDP has doubled in this nation.

*The Stock Market has doubled a great many times.

*Family wealth has increased on the average which is remarkable considering that the power of labor has gone from being on life support to being legally dead

*Violent crime continues to decrease

*Standards of living continue to increase

*The drug problem has gotten worse but as we have seen with prisons, walls and guards do little to stop drugs from getting in to those places so it's foolish to think it will stop a measurable quantity from getting over a 2,000 mile barrier.

My turn: Please justify declaring a "national emergency" in 02/19? Why wasn't it a national emergency in 01/17 when the President took office?
I understand not getting funding through Congress was frustrating but Congress is not there to be a rubber stamp for the President.

Doesn't this open the door to funding any campaign promise through declaration of a National Emergency?

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

The emergency is real. And Trump tried to get funding from day 1. Pelosi and the Democrats understand that giving Trump his wall will ensure his re-election. They would rather burn the country down than allow that.

Mark

 

[candycorn]

They were also emergencies

Define emergency.

Mark

Something that happens that requires an immediate response.

If I told you that more migrant families were arrested at the border in the past 5 months then in any previous full year, would you believe that to be an emergency?

Mark

No. Around the year 2000 we had over a million arrests. There was no national emergency then.

In the ensuing 18 years...

*GDP has doubled in this nation.

*The Stock Market has doubled a great many times.

*Family wealth has increased on the average which is remarkable considering that the power of labor has gone from being on life support to being legally dead

*Violent crime continues to decrease

*Standards of living continue to increase

*The drug problem has gotten worse but as we have seen with prisons, walls and guards do little to stop drugs from getting in to those places so it's foolish to think it will stop a measurable quantity from getting over a 2,000 mile barrier.

My turn: Please justify declaring a "national emergency" in 02/19? Why wasn't it a national emergency in 01/17 when the President took office?
I understand not getting funding through Congress was frustrating but Congress is not there to be a rubber stamp for the President.

Doesn't this open the door to funding any campaign promise through declaration of a National Emergency?

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

The emergency is real.

Mathematically you don't have a leg to stand on. Nor is there any evidence of a national emergency due to illegal immigration.

And Trump tried to get funding from day 1. Pelosi and the Democrats understand that giving Trump his wall will ensure his re-election. They would rather burn the country down than allow that.

Mark

Your opinion is irrelevant; as is mine.

As for "trying" to get funding...so? Lots of Presidents try to get funding for lots of things. None have declared a national emergency when they failed.

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for the wall?

Doesn't a declaration open the door to funding any campaign promise through the declaration of a National Emergency if Trump's actions stands?

 

[Ame®icano]

There's no national emergency at the border, you fascist!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions. The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary. Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.

Mark

Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.

It'll be decided by the courts.

I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.

How will they rule? I don't know.

You are going to so much trouble to try to justify these bullshit moves by the morally and intellectually bereft Democrats in Congress when we all know every move the make is for partisan political purposes with no thought of what is best for the country.

 

[candycorn]

Rand Paul and three others have decided that they are “no” votes on the Emergency Declaration.

Senate Seems to Have Enough Votes to Reject Trump’s Emergency Declaration

View attachment 248674

The doesn’t seem to be enough to over-ride the assured Presidential veto however.

Yet.

lol After 58 national emergencies declared by every president since 1976 and thirteen by Obama and three previous national emergencies by Trump, Paul decided this was a good time to defend the Constitution?

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

That's bullshit. The Pentagon re prioritizes projects all the time depending on changing conditions.

Illegal immigration is a new condition? We've had over a million arrests in a year in this young century. There was no need for a re-prioritization then; there is no need now.

The money was allocated to the military constructive fund and it is the military that allocates the money to those projects it deems necessary.

This isn't a military operation.

Your bizarre contention that Congress can make all decisions for the military is no where in the Constitution. Of course, none of this matters since even the House will not be able to overcome a veto. Just more political theater.

That wasn't the contention (what ever a contention is)....

Congress funds programs; be it the F22, the Bush aircraft carrier, a new barracks at Fort Riley.... It expressly funded what the President signed in the CR for border security.

 

[candycorn]

None of them directly confront the Constitution the way this does. The only one that dealt with domestic policy was overturned by the courts.

Rand Paul
"To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation. In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security. It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers. Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress. This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready. That was wrong. Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama. They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight."

First off, defending our borders is a national security matter and that falls under the executive, not the Congress. Paul is arguing that the President must bend to the will of Congress on a national security issue, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Let's keep in mind that this vote is just a gesture and will have no practical effect on building the fence, so Paul's chest thumping is just theater he will not have to take any real responsibility for.

No, he’s stating that the constitution says congress allocates the money and looting those previously allocated funds is something he can’t support

33 U.S. Code § 2293, says: "Reprogramming during national emergencies," permits the president to "apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

It really can't be anymore clearcut than that.

Mark

Congress allocates the funds. Declaring an emergency probably isn't going to render Article I null and void.

It'll be decided by the courts.

I doubt the court wants to get into the argument on whether this or that or the other is a "national emergency". I think the court will want to weigh in on whether the President can loot the treasury to fulfill a campaign promise.

How will they rule? I don't know.

You are going to so much trouble to try to justify these bullshit moves by the morally and intellectually bereft Democrats in Congress when we all know every move the make is for partisan political purposes with no thought of what is best for the country.

A trump supporter calling someone else intellectually and morally bereft is humorous.